Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Chandrika vs Krishnan

Chandrika vs Krishnan

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Orders Decided Feb 23, 2021
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1663630

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kerala Orders High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
RSA/546/2017

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Chandrika

Respondent

Krishnan

Excerpt

rsa.no.546 of 2017 as 334/2011 of i additional district court, palakkad w/o. arumughan, sreeniketham veettil, chandranagar post - 678 007, kunnannur amsom, pirivusala, palakkad taluk and district. 1 krishnan s/o. nagan, aged 58 years, kottappadikkal veettil, mankara amsom and desom mankara post - 678 613 palakkad taluk and district. 2 sreedharan s/o. krishnan, aged 39 years, kottappadikkal veettil,mankara amsom and desom mankara post - 678 613 palakkad taluk and district. r1-2 by adv. sri.rajesh sivaramankuttyother present: sri.rajesh sivaramankutty 23.02.2021, along with rsa.569/2017, the court on the same day ..2.. rsa.no.569 of 2017 as 335/2011 of i additional district court, palakkad w/o.arumughan, sreeniketham veettil, chandranagar post 678 007, kunnannur amsom, pirivusala, 1 sreedharan s/o.krishnan, aged 39 years, kottappadikkal veettil, mankara amsom and desom, mankara post 678 613 2 krishnan s/o.nagan, aged 58 years, kottappadikkal veettil, mankara amsom and desom, mankara post 678 613 r1 by adv. sri.rajesh sivaramankutty r1-2 by adv. sri.r.harikrishnan r1 by adv. sri.e.ramachandran 23.02.2021, along with rsa.546/2017, the court on the same day ..3..judgmentthe learned counsel for the appellant filed a memo dated 10.02.2021 in both the appeals, stating that the appellant does not want to prosecute the appeal further and therefore, the appeal may be dismissed as withdrawn. recording the memo, the appeals are dismissed as withdrawn. there would be no order as to costs. pending applications, if any, stand closed. sd/- n.anil kumar judge bka/23.02.2021

Full Judgment

RSA.No.546 OF 2017 AS 334/2011 OF I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD W/O. ARUMUGHAN, SREENIKETHAM VEETTIL, CHANDRANAGAR POST - 678 007, KUNNANNUR AMSOM, PIRIVUSALA, PALAKKAD TALUK AND DISTRICT. 1 KRISHNAN S/O. NAGAN, AGED 58 YEARS, KOTTAPPADIKKAL VEETTIL, MANKARA AMSOM AND DESOM MANKARA POST - 678 613 PALAKKAD TALUK AND DISTRICT. 2 SREEDHARAN S/O. KRISHNAN, AGED 39 YEARS, KOTTAPPADIKKAL VEETTIL,MANKARA AMSOM AND DESOM MANKARA POST - 678 613 PALAKKAD TALUK AND DISTRICT. R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY

OTHER PRESENT: SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY 23.02.2021, ALONG WITH RSA.569/2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY ..2.. RSA.No.569 OF 2017 AS 335/2011 OF I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD W/O.ARUMUGHAN, SREENIKETHAM VEETTIL, CHANDRANAGAR POST 678 007, KUNNANNUR AMSOM, PIRIVUSALA, 1 SREEDHARAN S/O.KRISHNAN, AGED 39 YEARS, KOTTAPPADIKKAL VEETTIL, MANKARA AMSOM AND DESOM, MANKARA POST 678 613 2 KRISHNAN S/O.NAGAN, AGED 58 YEARS, KOTTAPPADIKKAL VEETTIL, MANKARA AMSOM AND DESOM, MANKARA POST 678 613 R1 BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.R.HARIKRISHNAN R1 BY ADV. SRI.E.RAMACHANDRAN 23.02.2021, ALONG WITH RSA.546/2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY ..3..

JUDGMENT

The learned counsel for the appellant filed a memo dated 10.02.2021 in both the appeals, stating that the appellant does not want to prosecute the appeal further and therefore, the appeal may be dismissed as withdrawn. Recording the memo, the appeals are dismissed as withdrawn. There would be no order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, stand closed. Sd/- N.ANIL KUMAR JUDGE Bka/23.02.2021

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial